Re: [sc-users] Compiled language similar to sc ?

[Miguel Negrao <miguel.negrao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm not very informed about these things as you can notice. I was just 
curious why so many people use c,c++,java etc, when their appear to much 
nicer languages possible. So I suppose it's a speed issue, interpreted 
languages are not as fast as compiled ? but dynamic typing doesn't 
necessarily means that it is interpreted, or does it ?
 I learned scheme a few years ago, but haven't used it since.

thanks for the info
Miguel

Vytautas Jancauskas escreveu:
> If you want a strictly compiled to  native-code, as fast as C language then
> probably Common Lisp is the answer, namely SBCL compiler, but Common Lisp
> might be a bit to hard for you.
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Vytautas Jancauskas <unaudio@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
> > What does interpreted really means? Everything is interpreted. The program
> > that is compiled to native code is interpreted by the CPU. You could easily
> > write supercollider in ruby (you can extend it with C code quite easily, so
> > just code cpu intensive code in C).
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Miguel Negrao <
> > miguel.negrao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > But it's interpreted, right ? One wouldn't be able to write a program like
> > > supercollider in it ?
> > >
> > > Miguel
> > >
> > > Vytautas Jancauskas escreveu:
> > >
> > >  Ruby is compiled to byte-code and is very similar. The technical name you
> > > > are referring to is "dynamic typing"
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Miguel Negrao <
> > > > miguel.negrao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  Hi
> > > > > Since I started using supercollider I'm become used to it's ease of use,
> > > > > and it's great functionality. When going back to c or c++ for other
> > > > > projects
> > > > > I always feel like going back to the stone age.
> > > > >  I particularly love the flexible type system, I don't know the
> > > > > technical
> > > > > name of this, but being able to assign whatever I want to a variable
> > > > > without
> > > > > first defining what is easy. I love that everything is an object, and
> > > > > that
> > > > > the control structures are themselves methods of objects. In my code
> > > > > nowadays I don't ever use "for" loops, I always use .collect or .do . .
> > > > > I
> > > > > love the huge ammount of container classes with methods to do almost
> > > > > everything I can think off. Also the garbage collection is great.
> > > > >  So my question is, is there a compiled language that has this features
> > > > > ?
> > > > > And if yes, why the hell isn't everyone using it ?
> > > > >
> > > > > cheers,
> > > > > --
> > > > > Miguel Negrão // ZLB
> > > > > http://www.friendlyvirus.org/artists/zlb/
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > sc-users mailing list
> > > > >
> > > > > info (subscription, etc.):
> > > > > http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
> > > > > archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
> > > > > search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/
> > > --
> > > Miguel Negrão // ZLB
> > > http://www.friendlyvirus.org/artists/zlb/
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > sc-users mailing list
> > >
> > > info (subscription, etc.):
> > > http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
> > > archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
> > > search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/


--
Miguel Negrão // ZLB
http://www.friendlyvirus.org/artists/zlb/

_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/